Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Legal Services by Lawyers Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Acts Due to Their Duty-Bound Nature” – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that legal services provided by lawyers are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its 2019 iteration. This decision emphasizes the unique, duty-bound nature of the legal profession which is integral to the administration of justice.

The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the services rendered by lawyers could be classified under the ‘service’ category as defined by the Consumer Protection Acts of 1986 and 2019, thereby subjecting lawyers to the provisions of these acts concerning ‘deficiency in service’. The apex court, presided over by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, has categorically ruled out such an inclusion.

The matter arose from several appeals led by the Bar of Indian Lawyers against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) earlier decision, which had held that complaints of deficiency in service against advocates could be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act.

Nature of Legal Services: The court highlighted that legal services are not merely commercial but are crucial to the justice delivery system, involving duties to the court, the client, and the broader judicial framework.

Legislative Intent and Interpretation: Delving deep into the legislative history and intent behind the Consumer Protection Acts, the court observed that the primary objective was to shield consumers from unfair trade practices in commercial scenarios, not professional services.

Comparative Jurisprudence: The judgment also touched upon international practices in countries like Malaysia, the European Union, Canada, the USA, and Australia, noting a common approach to exempt professional services, including legal, from the ambit of consumer protection laws.

Legal Profession’s Distinctiveness: It was further emphasized that the legal profession, regulated under the Advocates Act, 1961, stands unique among other professions due to its integral role in upholding justice and democracy.

Decision: Concluding its extensive analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the NCDRC. It was held that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, categorizing legal services under ‘contract of personal service’ which are excluded from the act.

Date of Decision: 14th May 2024.

Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.

Latest Legal News